This topic has been locked by a moderator.
I get why people like shooting automatic rifles at firing ranges. I get it.
I don’t.
Explain it to me. Why is this required as a potential pastime in this country?
I wouldn’t say it is required, but I could see it as being fun.
I mean why is it required that this country include shooting guns at the range as a potential pastime? Why is it mandatory that there be the option to include this as one’s hobby?
If people got all bent out of shape that they couldn’t shoot at the range anymore, then I agree with Frink in saying
“too fucking bad.”
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.
I get why people like shooting automatic rifles at firing ranges. I get it.
I don’t.
Explain it to me. Why is this required as a potential pastime in this country?
I wouldn’t say it is required, but I could see it as being fun.
I mean why is it required that this country include shooting guns at the range as a potential pastime? Why is it mandatory that there be the option to include this as one’s hobby?
You’ll have to ask the pro-gun people that.
If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?
Just curious what you meant.
Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.
Like, rubber bullets?
So your solution is to keep the guns but ban real bullets?
I guess it’s not the worst idea.
That’s not my idea, I was just trying to figure out Dom’s “remove the lethal part of the guns” thing. I’m not aware of how lethal rubber bullets can be, so I don’t even know if that would be a good solution to his inquiry.
I did a quick skim on google and it seems like you can die from the impact, but it’s much less likely.
I would assume blanks would be a better idea.
Blanks don’t work the same way though. You can’t do target practice with blanks
“too fucking bad.”
What’s the difference between a fully automatic rifle and a semi-automatic rifle with a bump stock?
Nothing.
I believe I did mention bump stocks in my post above.
Again I agree for basically all intents and purposes, they are the same. But technically they are two different things.
Here is a good video that shows the difference between the two
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd9y8hHMUag&feature=youtu.be&t=26s
Therefore the terminology doesn’t matter.
The terminology does matter. Semi-auto weapons and fully-auto weapons are two different things. If we are going to decide what guns to ban and what not, we’d better understand these things. Also the other side uses the fact that the pro gun control people don’t understand these things as way to argue against them.
I don’t care, and nothing is going to change based on anything I say so I don’t see the point in clarifying that I’m talking about a semi-auto weapon.
Warb is correct. The terminology should not be ignored. Virtually all guns owned by US citizens in this day and age are semi-auto. All that means is that the gun auto-cocks every time you fire. You still have to pull the trigger every time. Bump-stocks are a separate issue from the guns themselves.
Since Republicans refuse to ban them, they are absolutely not a separate issue.
What’s the difference between a fully automatic rifle and a semi-automatic rifle with a bump stock?
Nothing.
I believe I did mention bump stocks in my post above.
Again I agree for basically all intents and purposes, they are the same. But technically they are two different things.
Here is a good video that shows the difference between the two
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd9y8hHMUag&feature=youtu.be&t=26s
Therefore the terminology doesn’t matter.
The terminology does matter. Semi-auto weapons and fully-auto weapons are two different things. If we are going to decide what guns to ban and what not, we’d better understand these things. Also the other side uses the fact that the pro gun control people don’t understand these things as way to argue against them.
I don’t care, and nothing is going to change based on anything I say so I don’t see the point in clarifying that I’m talking about a semi-auto weapon.
sheesh. Your attitude.
If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?
Just curious what you meant.
Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.
Like, rubber bullets?
So your solution is to keep the guns but ban real bullets?
I guess it’s not the worst idea.
That’s not my idea, I was just trying to figure out Dom’s “remove the lethal part of the guns” thing. I’m not aware of how lethal rubber bullets can be, so I don’t even know if that would be a good solution to his inquiry.
I did a quick skim on google and it seems like you can die from the impact, but it’s much less likely.
I would assume blanks would be a better idea.
Blanks don’t work the same way though. You can’t do target practice with blanks
“too fucking bad.”
That conversation was about making guns, as a sporting good, nonlethal. Blanks remove the use as a sporting good and are not entirely nonlethal. Therefore your argument is invalid in that context.
Army of Darkness: The Medieval Deadit | The Terminator - Color Regrade | The Wrong Trousers - Audio Preservation
SONIC RACES THROUGH THE GREEN FIELDS.
THE SUN RACES THROUGH A BLUE SKY FILLED WITH WHITE CLOUDS.
THE WAYS OF HIS HEART ARE MUCH LIKE THE SUN. SONIC RUNS AND RESTS; THE SUN RISES AND SETS.
DON’T GIVE UP ON THE SUN. DON’T MAKE THE SUN LAUGH AT YOU.
If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?
Just curious what you meant.
Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.
Like, rubber bullets?
Listen, I’m not a gun person so I’m not incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where I can provide a good solution. I just cannot understand why lethal power is needed to enjoy a gun at a shooting range.
If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?
Just curious what you meant.
Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.
Like, rubber bullets?
Listen, I’m not a gun person so I’m not incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where I can provide a good
This is exactly why I feel we pro-gun control people need to learn more about these things.
If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?
Just curious what you meant.
Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.
Like, rubber bullets?
Listen, I’m not a gun person so I’m not incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where I can provide a good
This is exactly why I feel we pro-gun control people need to learn more about these things.
Um okay then? Are you telling me there is a reason why guns at shooting ranges need lethal power? If so, I’d love to hear it.
Warb is correct. The terminology should not be ignored. Virtually all guns owned by US citizens in this day and age are semi-auto. All that means is that the gun auto-cocks every time you fire. You still have to pull the trigger every time. Bump-stocks are a separate issue from the guns themselves.
Since Republicans refuse to ban them, they are absolutely not a separate issue.
Bump-stocks allow semi-auto guns to be rapid-fired with near the efficiency of full-auto. Without the bump-stock, the gun is just like every single other gun anybody uses anywhere in the US for any purpose. The banning of bump-stocks would eliminate the need to ban semi-auto when the argument is that they are equivalent to full-auto when paired with a bump-stock. This makes them separate issues in my opinion.
Army of Darkness: The Medieval Deadit | The Terminator - Color Regrade | The Wrong Trousers - Audio Preservation
SONIC RACES THROUGH THE GREEN FIELDS.
THE SUN RACES THROUGH A BLUE SKY FILLED WITH WHITE CLOUDS.
THE WAYS OF HIS HEART ARE MUCH LIKE THE SUN. SONIC RUNS AND RESTS; THE SUN RISES AND SETS.
DON’T GIVE UP ON THE SUN. DON’T MAKE THE SUN LAUGH AT YOU.
Why do you guys care so much that the weapon isn’t fully automatic? And it can be fully auto if the guy decides to buy something for the gun, so why would you argue and bring that point up so much? I mean, I much rather have the guy having to press the trigger at every shot than once per magazine, but it’s almost just as deadly. I’d argue that the guy has even more precision with a semi-auto. It doesn’t matter, it’s beyond the point.
If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?
Just curious what you meant.
Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.
Like, rubber bullets?
Listen, I’m not a gun person so I’m not incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where I can provide a good
This is exactly why I feel we pro-gun control people need to learn more about these things.
Um okay then? Are you telling me there is a reason why guns at shooting ranges need lethal power? If so, I’d love to hear it.
no that is not what I was saying.
This makes them separate issues in my opinion.
Noted.
Why do you guys care so much that the weapon isn’t fully automatic? And it can be fully auto if the guy decides to buy something for the gun, so why would you argue and bring that point up so much? I mean, I much rather have the guy having to press the trigger at every shot than once per magazine, but it’s almost just as deadly. I’d argue that the guy has even more precision with a semi-auto. It doesn’t matter, it’s beyond the point.
I just like to get the facts and terminology correct.
Why do you guys care so much that the weapon isn’t fully automatic? And it can be fully auto if the guy decides to buy something for the gun, so why would you argue and bring that point up so much? I mean, I much rather have the guy having to press the trigger at every shot than once per magazine, but it’s almost just as deadly. I’d argue that the guy has even more precision with a semi-auto. It doesn’t matter, it’s beyond the point.
I just like to get the facts and terminology correct.
Noted.
I don’t care however.
If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?
Just curious what you meant.
Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.
Like, rubber bullets?
So your solution is to keep the guns but ban real bullets?
I guess it’s not the worst idea.
That’s not my idea, I was just trying to figure out Dom’s “remove the lethal part of the guns” thing. I’m not aware of how lethal rubber bullets can be, so I don’t even know if that would be a good solution to his inquiry.
I did a quick skim on google and it seems like you can die from the impact, but it’s much less likely.
I would assume blanks would be a better idea.
Blanks don’t work the same way though. You can’t do target practice with blanks
“too fucking bad.”
That conversation was about making guns, as a sporting good, nonlethal. Blanks remove the use as a sporting good and are not entirely nonlethal. Therefore your argument is invalid in that context.
Use BB guns.
If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?
Just curious what you meant.
Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.
Like, rubber bullets?
Listen, I’m not a gun person so I’m not incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where I can provide a good
This is exactly why I feel we pro-gun control people need to learn more about these things.
Um okay then? Are you telling me there is a reason why guns at shooting ranges need lethal power? If so, I’d love to hear it.
no that is not what I was saying.
Then, respectfully, what the hell were you saying?
Why do you guys care so much that the weapon isn’t fully automatic? And it can be fully auto if the guy decides to buy something for the gun, so why would you argue and bring that point up so much? I mean, I much rather have the guy having to press the trigger at every shot than once per magazine, but it’s almost just as deadly. I’d argue that the guy has even more precision with a semi-auto. It doesn’t matter, it’s beyond the point.
I just like to get the facts and terminology correct.
Noted.
I don’t care however.
noted, and so is your rude dismissiveness and bad attitude.
Why do you guys care so much that the weapon isn’t fully automatic?
I think the point is: if we (as a country) are to regulate/ban guns, we should specify what specifically should be regulated or banned and how. If we (in the gun-control camp) are to argue effectively, we ought to be knowledgeable in our argument and not make ignorant generalizations because our ignorance lessens the credibility of our argument. Therefore, accurate knowledge of terms and functioning of equipment is necessary, especially so we are better capable of understanding why past or current gun laws were/are inadequate or ineffective.
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.
Since banning guns entirely will never be likely, I’m interested in more feasible solutions. For instance, the rubber bullets idea is actually a fairly reasonable solution: it may not be 100% effective, but I guarantee 17 people wouldn’t have died on Valentine’s Day if the perpetrator only had access to rubber bullets. The same enjoyable aspects of guns would remain, while the lethal aspect would be drastically reduced.
Like I said earlier, all guns should be registered with something like a title following every transaction. Definitely in order to own, but even better would be limiting the ability to shoot without training and a license renewed every three or five years. No training without a permit certified by a particular licensing agency. No gun purchases to anyone under 21. No training for anyone under 16. I mean, guns and cars are both potentially quite lethal–the two are quite comparable, only fewer people shoot than drive. A police officer should be allowed to see a man with a gun and ask him to produce his license to own.
I just like to get the facts and terminology correct.
Noted.
I don’t care however.
Or maybe it was because you just flat out dismissed me and/or yhwx as being “wrong” so I was correct in deciding the discussion wasn’t worth the effort as I had previous said?
LOL Coming from literally one of the most dismissive posters on OT.com…
Got me there. Shrug.
If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?
Just curious what you meant.
Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.
Like, rubber bullets?
Listen, I’m not a gun person so I’m not incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where I can provide a good
This is exactly why I feel we pro-gun control people need to learn more about these things.
Um okay then? Are you telling me there is a reason why guns at shooting ranges need lethal power? If so, I’d love to hear it.
no that is not what I was saying.
Then, respectfully, what the hell were you saying?
merely that we pro-gun control people need to better understand guns and gun terminology. At the very least, doing so would make us more effective in debate against the other side. You yourself admitted to not being incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where you can provide a good solution. Therefore, get more knowledgeable.
Why do you guys care so much that the weapon isn’t fully automatic?
I think the point is: if we (as a country) are to regulate/ban guns, we should specify what specifically should be regulated or banned and how. If we (in the gun-control camp) are to argue efficiently, we ought to be knowledgeable in our argument and not make ignorant generalizations because our ignorance lessens the credibility of our argument. Therefore, accurate knowledge of terms and functioning of equipment is necessary, especially so we are better capable of understanding why past or current gun laws were/are inadequate or ineffective.
exactly. Thanks, chyron.